You can tell if someone is a computering supergenius if their solution to a difficult problem looks like nothing.

@athas False, except *maybe* for later Forth. Unix was always "do abstraction layers perfectly or not at all".

I've seen *vast* quantities of bitching about Unix scripting and it *never* turns into anything better. The best you get is PowerShell which is... a thing. (Yes, I know about nushell; no, I don't want to argue about it.)

(And as for Lisp, an army of Lisp weenies is currently tracking you down. I suggest changing your name and running into the wilderness.)

@suetanvil - and then in practical terms, to do anything at all, you need a system (in the form of a web browser) so complex that it can only be produced by a handful of huge corporations.

You can tell if someone is a computering supergenius if their solution to a difficult problem looks like nothing.

Lisp is six functions. Forth is 200 bytes. Unix is just tiny programs and text files. The original web is just a hacked SMTP server sending SGML files. And yet, it does *that*.

The huge, complex stuff--Windows, Java, the modern web--is all the work of mediocre thinkers with big budgets and too little time.

@suetanvil

I like the sentiment, but in practice, systems become complex because real humans demand complex behaviors.

The delightful simplicity in lisp and forth works when the problems you solve are delightfully simple and can all be kept in your head at once.

Yes, there are also people who add needless complexity, and that should all be removed, but the fundamental world is super complex and over simplifying only leads to a poor fit to real requirements.

@athas @suetanvil "refusing to solve the difficult problem and realising you can get away with it" is exactly what software engineering is about. a lot of "difficult problems" turn out to be seventeen simple problems in a trenchcoat, and you only need to solve the one that applies to you; conversely, sometimes *over*generalising a difficult problem turns it into a simpler one - there's a couple of examples of that in Thinking Forth

the point isn't to shy away from the difficult problem, but not to take it at face value - to prod at it until you're absolutely certain you need to solve exactly all of it.

You can tell if someone is a computering supergenius if their solution to a difficult problem looks like nothing.

Lisp is six functions. Forth is 200 bytes. Unix is just tiny programs and text files. The original web is just a hacked SMTP server sending SGML files. And yet, it does *that*.

The huge, complex stuff--Windows, Java, the modern web--is all the work of mediocre thinkers with big budgets and too little time.

You can tell if someone is a computering supergenius if their solution to a difficult problem looks like nothing.

Lisp is six functions. Forth is 200 bytes. Unix is just tiny programs and text files. The original web is just a hacked SMTP server sending SGML files. And yet, it does *that*.

The huge, complex stuff--Windows, Java, the modern web--is all the work of mediocre thinkers with big budgets and too little time.

@athas False, except *maybe* for later Forth. Unix was always "do abstraction layers perfectly or not at all".

I've seen *vast* quantities of bitching about Unix scripting and it *never* turns into anything better. The best you get is PowerShell which is... a thing. (Yes, I know about nushell; no, I don't want to argue about it.)

(And as for Lisp, an army of Lisp weenies is currently tracking you down. I suggest changing your name and running into the wilderness.)

@StompyRobot @suetanvil

Pretty much any problem is easier to implement in Lisp or Forth, because reflection is a first-class feature of both languages.

@athas @suetanvil "refusing to solve the difficult problem and realising you can get away with it" is exactly what software engineering is about. a lot of "difficult problems" turn out to be seventeen simple problems in a trenchcoat, and you only need to solve the one that applies to you; conversely, sometimes *over*generalising a difficult problem turns it into a simpler one - there's a couple of examples of that in Thinking Forth

the point isn't to shy away from the difficult problem, but not to take it at face value - to prod at it until you're absolutely certain you need to solve exactly all of it.

You can tell if someone is a computering supergenius if their solution to a difficult problem looks like nothing.

Lisp is six functions. Forth is 200 bytes. Unix is just tiny programs and text files. The original web is just a hacked SMTP server sending SGML files. And yet, it does *that*.

The huge, complex stuff--Windows, Java, the modern web--is all the work of mediocre thinkers with big budgets and too little time.

You can tell if someone is a computering supergenius if their solution to a difficult problem looks like nothing.

Lisp is six functions. Forth is 200 bytes. Unix is just tiny programs and text files. The original web is just a hacked SMTP server sending SGML files. And yet, it does *that*.

The huge, complex stuff--Windows, Java, the modern web--is all the work of mediocre thinkers with big budgets and too little time.

@millihertz @suetanvil I think the main lesson is to say "no, that problem is not worth solving 'properly'". Especially if the cost of solving it is high. That doesn't require computer genius; it mostly requires stubbornness and ego. Saying no to features is hard.